Trump as tragicomedy

[Xan]

Not sure what you mean; Europe is further down the road of decline than the US is by virtually any measure.

She spent this summer at an engineering internship in Switzerland. Theoretical measures aside, she saw no suffering. She was not in Greece. She's applying to the same university (Federal Polytechnic @ Laussanne) for grad school. Nothing beats what you see with your eyes, versus what you read on the Interwebs.

Well, Switzerland is hardly representative of the EU...

In fact it's not in the EU at all, is it?

[jhogue]

The Swiss had a national referendum and voted down joining the EU.

They know enough history to have good reason to distrust their neighbors.

[flyingpylon]

I just saw a clip of Obama at a state dinner with the previous French president on a show. I actually felt longing for those Obama (hell even Bush) days when, maybe he wasn't your cup of tea, but damn at least he was generally graceful, poised, and presidential.

Different people seem to want different things from their Presidents. Style is vastly overrated, IMO. It’s certainly a challenge most of the time, but it’s helpful to stay focused on the substance of the Trump presidency instead of all the melodrama. Of course it’s understood that some are legitimately turned off by the substance too.

[Kriegsspiel]

If she's going to live in Europe, I don't think she could do any better than Switzerland.

[flyingpylon]

Yeah, I have to admit that Trump hasn't caused as much damage as W did. But it's getting closer as the months go by. His constant attacks on the rule of law, the free press, and our alliances, along with kowtowing to despots, are degrading the foundations of our democracy at a faster rate than I foresaw. Fortunately, given the unprecedented level of scandal, I don't think he'll have enough time in office to create as much havoc as W did.

Different people seem to split style and substance in different places.

[jhogue]

When was the last time a sitting President who wished to run for a second term lost a primary?:

1.Taft lost a number of primaries to Teddy Roosevelt (and Robert LaFolette) in the campaign for the Republican nomination of 1912. The campaign was so bitter that TR walked out of the convention and ran as a independent. Taft and TR lost to Wilson in a 3-way race that inspired progressive measures like the income tax and the creation of the Federal Reserve. Not a good historical omen for present-day Republicans.

2. As for Elizabeth Warren's proposal to put labor representatives on corporate boards, it has been tried-- with mixed success at best-- in Europe. By law, Volkswagen has labor reps on its board, but that did nothing to stop the ongoing scandal known as "Dieselgate." That said, won't it be fun these next few years watching Pocahontas trying to "out-Bernie" Bernie Sanders?

[dualstow]

One of Bill Clinton's most famous quotes is, "it's the economy, stupid".

It was James Carville who coined that, not Bill Clinton.

[jhogue]

I believe that it was also James Carville who said: "You never know what you'll come up with if you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park." (referring to Paula Jones' successful lawsuit for sexual harassment against Bill Clinton).

There were also some other quotes attributed to him of an even earthier variety. I won't repeat them here, but if Hilary makes another run for the Presidency-- and I do not for a moment put it past her-- they are sure to make the rounds.

[Kbg]

I don't think Trump has been too tough on the press. Honestly, whether the right or left press they are all pretty much non-credible with very little if any actual reporting done anymore. The modus operandi for all of them is fake rage, salacious headlines and a bunch of hired talking heads "representing" both sides. With any "news" published the reader knows before they even start reading what the spin is going to be.

There is a reason 50% of the population views "the other side's" news outlets as non-credible...what I find troubling is everyone is so biased that they can't see that both kettles are a very dark black.

At this current point in time (things could change this), I think an objective non-partisan could on good grounds conclude the following:

1. There is no serious evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in any substantive way to influence the election. No doubt they were stupid and looking for dirt on Hillary. I think the the polite term is "opposition research." What we do also know conclusively is that Hillary topped Donald in paying for dirt in terms of its collection methods and the reporting produced.

2. Trump is basically a sleaze bag surrounded by sleazy people, and particularly if they are associates that were not foisted on him as part of the normal political spoils process (e.g. associates before the win, not after the win).

[stuper1]

I don't think Trump has been too tough on the press. Honestly, whether the right or left press they are all pretty much non-credible with very little if any actual reporting done anymore. The modus operandi for all of them is fake rage, salacious headlines and a bunch of hired talking heads "representing" both sides. With any "news" published the reader knows before they even start reading what the spin is going to be.

There is a reason 50% of the population views "the other side's" news outlets as non-credible...what I find troubling is everyone is so biased that they can't see that both kettles are a very dark black.

At this current point in time (things could change this), I think an objective non-partisan could on good grounds conclude the following:

1. There is no serious evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in any substantive way to influence the election. No doubt they were stupid and looking for dirt on Hillary. I think the the polite term is "opposition research." What we do also know conclusively is that Hillary topped Donald in paying for dirt in terms of its collection methods and the reporting produced.

2. Trump is basically a sleaze bag surrounded by sleazy people, and particularly if they are associates that were not foisted on him as part of the normal political spoils process (e.g. associates before the win, not after the win).

Very well stated. I agree with you 100%. I'm so sick of hearing people say that Trump is threatening the freedom of the press. Last time I checked there haven't been any death camps set up to receive journalists. The media just can't stand it when someone tells them that they are biased. Their heads explode because they can't stand the truth.

[dualstow]

So far, Trump’s talking about the press has been just that: talk. While referring to the press as “the enemy of the people” is disconcerting, and has echoes of the past, Trump hasn’t yet shut down a channel the way Putin has.

A recent poll shows that many Americans agree with that quote. Now that is troubling.
Biased? Yes, very. Enemy of the people? It needs to be improved, not silenced or taken over.

[dualstow]

Well said.
Btw, if Trump were to be impeached, I wonder if a Pence presidency would merely be a tragedy without the comedy.

[Maddy]

I, for one, as glad that the majority of conservatives have gotten over their fixation on character. Not that I don't consider character important in a president, but the reality is that there's precious little character to be seen anywhere in public life these days, and the reality of what we're up against demands some pragmatism. Let's face it: The Left has gotten a whole lot of mileage for an awfully long time from the fact that conservatives are. . . well. . . conservative. We've stood there being principled and gotten run over by a team that's not playing by any rules and that has made a mockery of the very notion of principle and character. The game has changed, and we're fighting for our constitutional republic at this point, and if a pimp and three hookers can get our country back on the right track, I'll be right there behind them.

[dualstow]

John McCain had character.

[stuper1]

John McCain had character.

I'm curious to know what evidence you have for this statement? I can find plenty of places on the internet where people claim that McCain was a show-off pilot who never would have crashed in Vietnam if he hadn't been flying inappropriately. And that he then behaved dishonorably and disloyally in prison. That he left his first wife when he found another woman with a lot more money. That he had dishonest dealings related to the savings and loan scandal. That he was only too happy to send America to war whenever possible, thereby enriching the military-industrial complex, but causing many of our young people to come home with limbs missing or worse, not to mention far worse casualty levels among the native inhabitants. And the list goes on.

Now, I don't know whether all that stuff is true. But I also don't know whether the hagiography peddled by the mainstream media is true. I tend to think the latter is just pablum meant to keep the masses happy.

[Cortopassi]

I think we are long past the idea that the way Trump operates is all part of a strategy. For whatever reason the way he operates worked in the corporate world, but not so much in the political one.

Would I vote for a pimp and three hookers who could put the country back on track? No. Some level of morality and decency has to be part of the job. I would vote for someone who:

1) makes it clear that the US does not need military bases all over the world and does not need to have a military budget the size of the next 10 (or whatever) countries combined and repurposes that money and talent at home.
2) knows how to make, and live within a real balanced budget
3) figures out the whole medical care/prescription drug fiasco
4) small kids can look up to and feel good about him/her as president
5) does not make decisions based off special interest lobbying but rather what's best for the country.

among some other things. But those are the big five.

Everything has become a conservative/liberal arguing point. Nothing seems to be discussed from a what's best for America standpoint much anymore.

Stuper, your comments about McCain, I tend to echo those. I do not want to disparage the dead, and he seemed to be a decent guy, but at least some of your points are correct, esp. being too hawkish on war.

[Maddy]

Did you ever think you'd see a time when the repeal of the First Amendment was being seriously debated? That a small conglomerate of media and tech companies would be effectively controlling the content of public speech? That peaceful conservative speech would be routinely quelled by the threat of political persecution and by frequently-acted-out threats of violence? That candidates for public office would be subjected to searching intrusions of such a personal and invasive nature that only those in control of the political extortion apparatus would dare run? That a sitting congresswoman could seriously boast of a national database so powerful as to virtually guarantee the Elite's stranglehold over future elections? That dissenting voices on issues that matter can expect their friends to be charged with crimes and their attorneys' offices to be searched? That an unelected, unaccountable, fourth branch of government would eclipse all others, and that it would become so powerful as to be effectively beyond the executive's control?

The game has changed. If you want character in your life, find it in your family, your friends, your church. This is a fight for the constitutional republic, and the other side is no longer playing by any rules. Thankfully, conservatives are beginning to understand that.

[dualstow]

I can find plenty of places on the internet where people claim

Yeah, you run with that.
Anything I can say is just pablum for the masses.

[dualstow]

Regarding McCain, I just saw this article this morning. It's pretty good.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... st/568582/

Tsk, tsk, Desert. Isn't that a little mainstream? You have to find something in infowars for it to be the truth. /s
Well, I'm getting on a train, and I say that lest anyone think I'm leaving in a huff; I'm not.

[clacy]

A new NAFTA deal with Mexico will be announced this week. That's very exciting.

Renegotiated and more favorable to the US. It's weird to me how easy that was to do, and I wonder why our previous Presidents didn't even try?

[stuper1]

Did you ever think you'd see a time when the repeal of the First Amendment was being seriously debated? That a small conglomerate of media and tech companies would be effectively controlling the content of public speech? That peaceful conservative speech would be routinely quelled by the threat of political persecution and by frequently-acted-out threats of violence? That candidates for public office would be subjected to searching intrusions of such a personal and invasive nature that only those in control of the political extortion apparatus would dare run? That a sitting congresswoman could seriously boast of a national database so powerful as to virtually guarantee the Elite's stranglehold over future elections? That dissenting voices on issues that matter can expect their friends to be charged with crimes and their attorneys' offices to be searched? That an unelected, unaccountable, fourth branch of government would eclipse all others, and that it would become so powerful as to be effectively beyond the executive's control?

The game has changed. If you want character in your life, find it in your family, your friends, your church. This is a fight for the constitutional republic, and the other side is no longer playing by any rules. Thankfully, conservatives are beginning to understand that.

Maddy says that if you want character in your life, find it in your family, your friends, your church. These are very wise words, and that was my point about McCain. I really have no idea whether he was a good guy or not (frankly, my hunch is that he wasn't, but that's just my hunch). I can find plenty of people on the internet who say he was great, and I can find some who say he was awful. Which group is telling the truth? I really have no way of knowing. I suppose I could spend weeks reading everything available on the internet and try to weigh it all up, but I doubt that would really work. Just because 90% of the people say one thing doesn't make it true. A lot of the stuff that people say is just repeating stuff that they heard somebody else say.

[stuper1]

And now the US media moguls are only too happy to report that some Russian paper (probably very obscure and irrelevant) wishes for McCain to burn in hell. Of course, the US media should use his death to try to create more friction between the US and Russia, since that seemed to be the sort of thing that McCain lived for. So, who could blame the Russians if they did wish him to burn in hell? Heck, if I believed that was how things worked, I might wish that upon him for all of the carnage he wrought upon this planet. And yet for all of his talk about defending the US, he did little or nothing to strengthen our extremely porous border.

[Cortopassi]

Some stuff is starting to overshadow the "be nice because he's dead" voices

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/op ... 9515140a77

https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economic ... vkzs4AQUw/

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/08/27/t ... hn-mccain/

[moda0306]

Maddy I really don't know where you are your getting your information from because I have a very different interpretation of reality.

I think you've said that you were a fan of Alan Derschowitz. I've found his arguments to be hardly much more convincing than many Trump detractors... is there anyone else you'd recommend following that has helped most-color your opinion on this stuff?

[tim47]

Back to Desert, I do not think Trump has any clue re unintended consequences. Really, there is little thinking here re the deep consequences of his executive actions. He has a pretty long history of simply filing for bankruptcy when things do not go his way. Just not a useful tool as the president, and he still tries in he’s own way...and yes, he still has useful instincts in our economic environment...